Comments on: They should be so dumb http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/07/29/they-should-be-so-dumb/ by Jeff Jarvis Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:25:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » News is a constant http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/07/29/they-should-be-so-dumb/#comment-99609 BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » News is a constant Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:14:25 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1820#comment-99609 [...] : Oh, and tell this to Jack Shafer: But one constant remains: Local and community news continues to be the biggest draw for newspapers. And as was the case during the mid-1980s, roughly nine-in-ten of those who at least sometimes read a newspaper say they spend a significant amount of time getting the news about their city, town or region. [...] [...] : Oh, and tell this to Jack Shafer: But one constant remains: Local and community news continues to be the biggest draw for newspapers. And as was the case during the mid-1980s, roughly nine-in-ten of those who at least sometimes read a newspaper say they spend a significant amount of time getting the news about their city, town or region. [...]

]]> By: J http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/07/29/they-should-be-so-dumb/#comment-98975 J Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:22:36 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1820#comment-98975 I'll second the remark that local TV sites are just as comprehensive and more timely for the local stuff than local paper sites. Did the authors consider that outside the NY metro area, subscribing to the NYT might an affectation for many people (not that that isn't a legitimate marketing tool)? I’ll second the remark that local TV sites are just as comprehensive and more timely for the local stuff than local paper sites. Did the authors consider that outside the NY metro area, subscribing to the NYT might an affectation for many people (not that that isn’t a legitimate marketing tool)?

]]> By: Bob Wyman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/07/29/they-should-be-so-dumb/#comment-98555 Bob Wyman Sun, 30 Jul 2006 04:51:10 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1820#comment-98555 In most of America, there is only one local paper. Most of the 1,400 or so American newspapers have virtually no competition and haven't had any for many years -- if ever. Thus, when the New York Times enters a market, it is inevitable that it would have a major impact on that market. It introduces true competition with a distinguished product that is honed by the lessons it has learned from competing in many other markets. It isn't at all surprising that the NYT would cause trouble for local papers unaccustomed to competing for readers and unable to provide a convincing voice in non-local coverage. I once lived in Grand Forks, North Dakota. If the Times had been available, we would have subscribed... But, I still would have needed the Grand Forks Herald for good coverage of high school sports, movie listings, local agriculture issues, floods, etc... (Subjects that the New York Times couldn't hope to cover.) I also have spent a good bit of time living overseas and when overseas have usually read two newspapers. I would read the International Herald Tribune (for international news) as well as a local paper (for local news). The IHT used to be a joint effort of the New York Times and The Washington Post... Perhaps this exposure to a joint operation is why I've always thought that the best model would be for local papers to cooperate with national and global papers rather than try to compete with them. When I was in Grand Forks, ND, the ideal paper would have been a joint publication of the Grand Forks Herald and the New York Times... The folk at the Herald would concentrate on local news, local perspective and local advertisers while the New York Times would provide their usual indepth coverage of international and national news along with national advertising. Perhaps that Herald could have been the equivelant of the NYT "Metro" section each day. That would be the best of both worlds -- it would address the needs of both markets, shore up the reputation of the local paper and help it compete against the WSJ, etc., as well as provide more efficient access to advertising revenues for both the local papers and the New York Times... Personally, I think that the really "big" news in declining readership of local papers may one day be the impact that the web sites of TV stations are having on local papers. In many markets, the TV web sites have more content (both local and non-local), are updated more frequently than the local papers, and they offer video news for folk with broadband. Thus, the local TV website is, by leveraging the technology and newsgathering of the national network (and the AP), offering a much more dynamic and integrated news source than most of the local papers. Given that Internet users are typically "more educated" than average, it is likely that some of the loss of the "highly educated" readers is due to the folk who realize that they get a better integrated news product, with less paper to recycle, by going online to the TV web sites... bob wyman In most of America, there is only one local paper. Most of the 1,400 or so American newspapers have virtually no competition and haven’t had any for many years — if ever. Thus, when the New York Times enters a market, it is inevitable that it would have a major impact on that market. It introduces true competition with a distinguished product that is honed by the lessons it has learned from competing in many other markets. It isn’t at all surprising that the NYT would cause trouble for local papers unaccustomed to competing for readers and unable to provide a convincing voice in non-local coverage. I once lived in Grand Forks, North Dakota. If the Times had been available, we would have subscribed… But, I still would have needed the Grand Forks Herald for good coverage of high school sports, movie listings, local agriculture issues, floods, etc… (Subjects that the New York Times couldn’t hope to cover.)

I also have spent a good bit of time living overseas and when overseas have usually read two newspapers. I would read the International Herald Tribune (for international news) as well as a local paper (for local news). The IHT used to be a joint effort of the New York Times and The Washington Post… Perhaps this exposure to a joint operation is why I’ve always thought that the best model would be for local papers to cooperate with national and global papers rather than try to compete with them. When I was in Grand Forks, ND, the ideal paper would have been a joint publication of the Grand Forks Herald and the New York Times… The folk at the Herald would concentrate on local news, local perspective and local advertisers while the New York Times would provide their usual indepth coverage of international and national news along with national advertising. Perhaps that Herald could have been the equivelant of the NYT “Metro” section each day. That would be the best of both worlds — it would address the needs of both markets, shore up the reputation of the local paper and help it compete against the WSJ, etc., as well as provide more efficient access to advertising revenues for both the local papers and the New York Times…

Personally, I think that the really “big” news in declining readership of local papers may one day be the impact that the web sites of TV stations are having on local papers. In many markets, the TV web sites have more content (both local and non-local), are updated more frequently than the local papers, and they offer video news for folk with broadband. Thus, the local TV website is, by leveraging the technology and newsgathering of the national network (and the AP), offering a much more dynamic and integrated news source than most of the local papers. Given that Internet users are typically “more educated” than average, it is likely that some of the loss of the “highly educated” readers is due to the folk who realize that they get a better integrated news product, with less paper to recycle, by going online to the TV web sites…

bob wyman

]]> By: David Mastio http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/07/29/they-should-be-so-dumb/#comment-98477 David Mastio Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:28:06 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1820#comment-98477 The arrogance is really just amazing in focusing this at all on The New York Times. USA Today and The Wall Street Journal have been stealing different classes of well-off readers from local papers for years and given that they each individually have twice the circulation that the NYT's does, their impact has been a tad bigger, don't you think? Cable and the Internet might be having an impact too. Still, Jack isn't the problem in transforming newspapers. There are skads of people in every newsroom who think exactly like Jack. Every time an editor or publisher tries to push his paper to go more local, all the Jacks drag their feet. The arrogance is really just amazing in focusing this at all on The New York Times. USA Today and The Wall Street Journal have been stealing different classes of well-off readers from local papers for years and given that they each individually have twice the circulation that the NYT’s does, their impact has been a tad bigger, don’t you think?

Cable and the Internet might be having an impact too.

Still, Jack isn’t the problem in transforming newspapers. There are skads of people in every newsroom who think exactly like Jack. Every time an editor or publisher tries to push his paper to go more local, all the Jacks drag their feet.

]]>